This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The

(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Ecological Indicators 14 (2012) 164–169
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
Original article
The relationship between percentage of singletons and sampling effort: A new
approach to reduce the bias of richness estimates
Luiz Carlos Serramo Lopez a,∗ , Maria Paula de Aguiar Fracasso b , Daniel Oliveira Mesquita a ,
Alexandre Ramlo Torre Palma a , Pablo Riul c
a
Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Centro de Ciências Exatas e da Natureza, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Cidade Universitária, João Pessoa Paraíba, 58059-900, Brazil
Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Av. das Baraúnas, 351/Campus Universitário, Bodocongó, 58109-753, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil
c
Departamento de Engenharia e Meio Ambiente, Centro de Ciências Aplicadas e Educação, Universidade Federal da Paraíba - Campus IV, R: Mangueira s/n, Centro CEP: 58.297-000,
Rio Tinto, Paraíba, Brazil
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 February 2011
Received in revised form 1 July 2011
Accepted 10 July 2011
Keywords:
Species richness estimation
Sampling intensity
Singletons
Inventory completeness
Chao1
Jackknife
Bootstrap
Chao2
ACE
ICE
a b s t r a c t
Estimate the richness of a community with accuracy despite differences in sampling effort is a key aspect
to monitoring high diverse ecosystems. We compiled a worldwide multitaxa database, comprising 185
communities, in order to study the relationship between the percentage of species represented by one
individual (singletons) and the intensity of sampling (number of individuals divided by the number of
species sampled). The database was used to empirically adjust a correction factor to improve the performance of non-parametrical estimators under conditions of low sampling effort. The correction factor was
tested on seven estimators (Chao1, Chao2, Jack1, Jack2, ACE, ICE and Bootstrap). The correction factor was
able to reduce the bias of all estimators tested under conditions of undersampling, while converging to
the original uncorrected values at higher intensities. Our findings led us to recommend the threshold of
20 individuals/species, or less than 21% of singletons, as a minimum sampling effort to produce reliable
richness estimates of high diverse ecosystems using corrected non-parametric estimators. This threshold
rise for 50 individuals/species if non-corrected estimators are used which implies in an economy of 60%
of sampling effort if the correction factor is used.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Species richness is the most frequently used diversity indicator (Feest et al., 2010), and the demand for more accurate richness
estimation grows in parallel with the increased human alteration
of our biosphere (Clarke et al., 2011; Gotelli and Colwell, 2001;
Magurran, 2004). Although species richness alone does not capture
how species interact among themselves and the functional diversity present in the ecosystems (Hooper et al., 2005; Petchey and
Gaston, 2002), it still conveys a basic information about biological communities, which can be combined with other parameters to
produce high quality indicators (Feest, 2006; Feest et al., 2011).
However, researchers face a trade-off between very complete
diversity inventories, which are time and resource consuming, and
briefer ones thought to be more imprecise. Longino et al. (2002)
and Mao and Colwell (2005) stressed the challenges involved in
determining the total richness of a given community, since there is
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 83 9937 6226.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L.C.S. Lopez).
1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.012
an overwhelming presence of rare species in mega-diverse ecosystems.
Using non-parametric richness estimators is a potential tool to
evaluate the completeness of an inventory (Chao, 1984; Colwell
and Coddington, 1994; Smith and van Belle, 1984). Non-parametric
estimators are thought to be less dependent on the rate of collection of unseen species discovery or the shape of the assemblage
distribution (Chao et al., 2009; Palmer, 1990, 1991; Zelmer and
Esch, 1999). However, they demand a minimum sampling effort
to produce reliable estimates (Chao et al., 2009; Chiarucci et al.,
2003).
Coddington et al. (2009) suggested that many inventories of
tropical arthropods suffer from an undersampling bias, strong
enough to impair even the use of richness estimators in order to
assess the real richness of these assemblages. In a large compilation
of tropical arthropod inventories, they also found a significant negative relationship between the percentage of species represented
by one individual (singleton) and the sample intensity (abundance
divided by richness). Singletons have an intuitive connection with
inventory completeness, since we expect that the proportions of
singletons should decrease as the sampling effort increases, until
we come close to the “real” proportion of singletons present in a
Author's personal copy
L.C.S. Lopez et al. / Ecological Indicators 14 (2012) 164–169
community. For instance, Coddington et al. (2009) estimated a true
proportion of 4% singletons by lognormal extrapolation from their
spider assemblage, which originally presented 29% singletons.
Solutions to obtain more reliable richness estimates are either
a dramatic increase in sample effort or the development of better
richness estimators (Chiarucci et al., 2003). Here we proposed that
it is possible to correct classical non-parametric estimators in order
to boost their performance under conditions of undersampling. We
empirically derived this correction using the relationship between
the intensity of sampling and the proportion of singletons found in
a large database of communities we obtained from the literature.
Our correction to improve a non-parametric estimator under
low sampling conditions consists in multiplying the original estimative by 1 plus the proportions of singletons in the sample
elevated by a constant:
(1)
where SestP is the modified estimate, Sest is the original estimate, P is
the proportion of singletons (singletons/observed species richness)
and z is a constant higher than one. Since the proportions of singletons (P) falls as the sampling effort increases, this basic formula
will improve the performance of the estimator under low sampling
effort but will converge to the original estimate at high sampling
effort conditions.
The constant z in the formula shall mirror the allometric relationship between the proportions of singletons (P) and the intensity
of sampling (I) found in natural assemblages. Assuming that:
P = I −1/z
(2)
the value of the constant z can be empirically derived as
ln I
z=−
ln P
(3)
where ln I is the natural logarithm of the sampling intensity (the
number of individuals divided by the number of species observed in
a given sample) and ln P is the natural logarithm of the proportions
of singletons in the same sample. To estimate the value of z we
used a large compilation of different communities, varying widely
in sampling intensity and taxonomical composition. We found the
average value of z in this database of 185 assemblages to be close
to 2 (2.06 ± 0.73 SD, n = 185), leading us to a general transformation
to correct non-parametric estimators under low sampling effort.
SestP = Sest (1 + P 2 )
2. Methods
2.1. Database of communities
We expanded the Coddington et al. (2009) original compilation of terrestrial arthropod inventories, adding other taxa (tropical
trees, corals and terrestrial vertebrates) to produce a set of 185
datasets where the singletons-richness ratio and the intensity of
sampling (abundance/richness) were calculated (see Appendix S1
in Supporting Information for details).
2.2. Testing the efficacy of the P transformation for Chao1
estimator using data from large plots of tropical forests
1.1. Deriving the estimator correction
SestP = Sest (1 + P z )
165
(4)
This correction (called P correction) can also be used to speciesincidence estimators by substituting the proportion of singletons
(species represented by one individual) by the proportions of
uniques (species represented in one sample). The transformation
will increase the estimate (up to 100%) when the proportion of
singletons (or uniques) in the sample is high, but decreases exponentially, converging towards the original estimator value when
the proportion is low.
We also used our database of communities to search for trends
that could indicate the “real” proportions of singletons in well
sampled assemblages and to evaluate the limits that low sample intensities pose to the reliability of non-parametric estimators,
with and without the correction we developed. We tested our P
correction in the most common used non parametric estimators:
Chao1 (Chao, 1984), Chao2 (Chao, 1987), Jackknife1 (Heltshe and
Forrester, 1983), Jackknife2 (Burnham and Overton, 1978), ACE, ICE
(Chao and Lee, 1992), and Bootstrap (Smith and van Belle, 1984).
We used the data from six inventories produced by research
teams belonging to The Center for Tropical Forest Science network
of large forests plots around the world (Condit et al., 2005; CTFS,
2009). We used data from 3 different continents: Africa (Korup Forest, census 1998 and Edoro Forest, census 2000), Americas (BCI,
census 2005 and Luquillo, census 1995) and Asia (Huai Kha Khaeng,
census 1999 and Pasoh, census 1995). For each plot, we obtained
simulated sets of 100 rarefied sub-samples with increasing average
intensities (5, 25, 75 and 100 ind/spp.).
We used the classical Chao1 (Chao, 1984) estimator to perform a
series of comparisons between the original Chao1 formula and the
P corrected “Chao1P”. We calculated the average Chao1 estimates
and our corrected Chao1P for each set of rarefaction simulations at
different intensities. Using these estimates, we calculated the bias
and precision of these two estimators using the scaled mean error
(SME) and the coefficient of variation respectively (Walther and
Moore, 2005). Fitting the average estimates from these rarefactions
to power curves, we also inferred the minimum sampling intensity
necessary to estimate 100% and 95% of the original richness.
2.3. Using the database of communities to test the efficiency of
Chao1 estimator
We calculated the percentage difference between Chao1 and
Chao1P estimates for the 185 communities in our database. This
difference can be derived from the Chao1P formula (Eq. (2)) as
follows:
DifferenceChao1 vs Chao1P =
f 2
1
Sobs
× 100
(5)
To check the validity of our rarefactions, we calculated the mean
difference between Chao1 and Chao1P estimates from simulated
intensities of 5, 25, 75 and 100 (obtained from the high intensity forest plots) and compared them with the differences obtained from
our multi-taxa database with similar non-rarefied intensities.
2.4. Testing the P correction for Chao 2, Jackknife 1, Jackknife 2,
ACE, ICE and Bootstrap estimators
To test the performance of the P correction for other nonparametrical estimators, besides the Chao 1, we made simulations
using data from BCI tree plot (census 2005) (CTFS, 2009). We created 50 pairs of rarefied samples drawn from BCI data with 5 levels
of sampling intensity (5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 ind/spp.). These subsamples were used as an input data for EstimateS 8.2 (Colwell, 2009)
to create the original, uncorrected, estimates using Chao2, Jack1,
Jack2, ACE, ICE and Bootstrap estimators (100 simulations per sample). Using the formula (1) we transformed the original estimates in
their corrected P versions (Chao2P, Jack1P, etc.) and compared the
ability of corrected and uncorrected estimators to estimate 100%
of BCI dataset richness (299 species) using sub-sets with reduced
intensity of sampling (Fig. 1).
Author's personal copy
166
L.C.S. Lopez et al. / Ecological Indicators 14 (2012) 164–169
80
Real data
Intensity 100
Intensity 75
Intensity 50
Intensity 25
Intensity 5
4
Percentage of singletons
Log abundance + 1
5
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-0.3972
y=0.6747*x
R=0.721
60
40
20
0
Log rank
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Intensity
Fig. 1. Abundance (log 10) vs. Rank (log 10) of tree species from BCI utilizing real
data (census 2005, real intensity 697 ind/spp.) and the abundance averages from
100 rarefaction simulations under five sampling intensities (100, 75, 50, 25 and
5 ind/spp.).
Fig. 2. Scatterplot between percentage sampling intensity (ind/spp.) and percentage of singletons for 185 communities belonging to 4 major taxa (arthropods, corals,
trees and vertebrates). The percentage of singletons falls sharply between 0 and
75 ind/spp., but tends to stabilize around 8% singletons above intensity 100.
3. Results
Our expanded database encompasses 185 communities, ranging from 1 to 1423 ind/spp. in intensity and between 2% and 72%
singletons. The median intensity was 20.3 and the median percentage of singletons 19.2%. The community samples belonged to four
major groups: terrestrial vertebrates (n = 79), terrestrial arthropods (n = 72), corals (n = 22) and trees (n = 12) (see Appendix S1).
The correlation between intensity and percentage of singletons
was very highly significant (log-transformed power curve, r = 0.72;
p < 0.0001; Fig. 2). The percentage of singletons tended to decline
as sampling intensity increased, with samples of intensity 5 or less
(n = 23) having an average of 46% singletons (±3% SE), while communities with a sampling intensity of 100 or more (n = 20) had an
average of 8% of singletons (±1% SE) (Fig. 3).
The Chao1P estimator had less bias and precision compared to
Chao1, when tested in rarefied sub-samples from six large plots of
trees (Table 1). At higher intensities, both estimators yield very similar results (0.8% on average bias difference at original intensities).
However, at the low intensity of 5 ind/spp., Chao1P outperforms
Chao1 by 17.1% in terms of bias, with an average precision loss of
2.8% compared to Chao1 (Table 1).
Huai Kha Khaeng
Barro Colorado
100
80
Chao1P
Chao1
60
Estimated richness (%)
40
Ituri Edoro
Korup
Luquillo
Pasoh
100
80
60
40
100
80
60
40
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
60
80
100
Intensity
Fig. 3. Average percentage of original richness estimated with uncorrected Chao1 and corrected Chao1P estimators from rarified simulations with different sampling intensity
efforts. At higher intensities, both estimators tend to converge, but Chao1P estimates approaches faster than Chao1 towards 100% of estimation as intensity increased in the
six large plots of trees used in the simulations.
Author's personal copy
L.C.S. Lopez et al. / Ecological Indicators 14 (2012) 164–169
167
Table 1
Average bias and loss of precision percent values (100×) for estimates of richness found with the uncorrected Chao1 and the corrected Chao1P using 100 rarefied simulations
with different sampling intensities (INT) drawn from six large plots of tropical trees (standard error between parentheses). At lower intensities Chao1P showed a good
trade-off between bias reduction and loss of precision compared to Chao1.
Bias
Average Bias Chao1
Average Bias Chao1P
Bias Chao1P–Bias Chao1
Precision
Avg Precision Loss (A.P.L.) Chao1
Avg Precision Loss (A.P.L.) Chao1P
A.P.L. Chao1P–A.P.L. Chao1
INT 5
INT 25
INT 50
INT 75
INT 100
Real
−32 (±6)
−14 (±5)
−17 (±1)
−11 (±2)
−4 (±2)
−8 (±1)
−4 (±1)
1 (±1)
−5 (±1)
0 (±1)
4 (±2)
−4 (±1)
1 (±1)
4 (±1)
−4 (±1)
7 (±2)
7 (±2)
−1 (±0)
19 (±4)
22 (±4)
−3 (±0)
10 (±3)
12 (±3)
−2 (±0)
10 (±3)
11 (±3)
−1 (±0)
8 (±2)
8 (±2)
0 (±0)
7 (±1)
7 (±1)
0 (±0)
20
0.0691
y=0.7673*x
R=0.9945
0.1332
y=0.5618*x
R=0.9891
90
80
70
Chao1
Chao1P
Estimates diference (%)
Estimated richness (%)
110
100
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
60
Real samples
Rarefactions
15
10
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
Intensity
The estimated richness increased with rarefaction intensities in
a pattern that fits very well to the power curves for both Chao1P
and Chao1 (R2 = 0.99 for Chao1P and 0.98 for Chao1) (Fig. 4). These
curves predict that, on average, Chao1P will estimate 100% of original richness at an intensity of 52.0 ind/spp. (±9.4 SE), while Chao1
will reach 100% at an intensity of 78.7 ind/spp. (±5.5 SE) (Fig. 4). If
we use 95% of original richness instead of 100% as a good approximation of original richness (as proposed by Chao et al. (2009)),
the thresholds change to 20.7 ind/spp. (±5.9 SE) for Chao1P and
50.0 ind/spp. (±9.4 SE) for Chao1.
The difference between the two estimators obtained from the
rarefaction simulations (from tree plots with intensity 261 or more)
showed good agreement with the average difference obtained from
samples of taxa that had low intensity (Fig. 5). For example, on rarefactions to an intensity of 5 the Chao1P estimates were, on average,
17.1% (±1% SE) higher than Chao1 while for the 57 communities (29
of arthropods and 28 of vertebrates) in our database with intensities ranging between zero and 10 (midpoint intensity 5) the average
difference was 17.2% (±2% SE) (Fig. 5).
The P transformation improved the performance of the other
6 non-parametrical estimators (Chao2, Jack1, Jack2, ACE, ICE and
Bootstrap) in similar way it did for Chao1. The transformed estimators produced estimates that were more close to BCI real
richness compared to their untransformed versions under simulated conditions of low sampling effort (9% less biased, in
average, compared to the uncorrected formulas at the intensity of 5 ind/spp.) and converge to the untransformed values as
sampling effort increases (Table 2). The ICE corrected estimator
(“ICEP”) showed the best overall performance, in these simulations, estimating, in average, 83% of BCI real richness at intensity
5 ind/spp. compared to 67% made using its uncorrected version
(Fig. 6).
60
80
100
Intensity
Fig. 5. Average differences (SE bars) between Chao1 and Chao1P estimates for rarefactions extracted from high intensity samples compared to differences obtained
from real samples with original low intensities. The pattern of improved estimation
by Chao1P at low intensities followed by convergence at higher intensities is very
similar between rarefaction simulations and real data.
4. Discussion
Our expanded dataset confirmed the trend found by Coddington
et al. (2009) for their arthropod database: the percentage of singletons tends to decrease with an increase in the sampling intensity
in a very consistent way. At lower intensities, one needs to increase
the intensity of sampling by five-fold in order to halve the frequency of singletons. However, at higher intensities (roughly, above
intensity 100), the frequency of singletons tends to stabilize around
8% (Fig. 2). Given that we have a phylogenetically diverse group
of assemblages present in our database (corals, arthropods, vertebrates and trees), we assume that this pattern is a general one
among communities. Consequently, the value of 8% (±4% SD) is
100
Estimated richness (%)
Fig. 4. Mean richness (SE bars) estimated by Chao1 and Chao1P estimators obtained
from rarefactions of six large plots of tropical trees. The fitted power curves were
used to calculate the minimum intensity necessary to estimate 95% and 100% of original richness. Chao1P crosses these thresholds (95% and 100%) with less sampling
effort than Chao1.
40
90
80
70
ICE
ICE P
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
Intensity
Fig. 6. Comparative performance between corrected (ICEP) and uncorrected (ICE)
version of the ICE non-parametric richness estimator trying to predict the richness of
BCI 50 ha plot (census 2005, richness = 299, intensity = 697 ind/spp.). The corrected
estimator produced less biased estimates and make better predictions with less
sampling effort.
Author's personal copy
168
L.C.S. Lopez et al. / Ecological Indicators 14 (2012) 164–169
Table 2
Biases of six non-parametric richness estimators (ACE, ICE, Chao2, Jacknife 1, Jacknife 2 and Bootstrap), using their original uncorrected formulas and their P corrected
versions, while trying to estimate BCI 50 ha plot richness (299 tree species and intensity sample of 697 individuals/species) using subsamples with low intensity (5 ind/spp.)
and high intensity (100 ind/spp.). The P corrected versions of the estimators produce less biased estimates compared to their uncorrected versions.
Low intensity uncorrected bias
ACE
ICE
Chao2
Jackknife 1
Jackknife 2
Bootstrap
Average (±SD)
34%
26%
44%
41%
41%
46%
39% (±7%)
Low intensity corrected bias
26%
14%
35%
34%
31%
37%
30% (±9%)
probably close to the percentage of singletons expected from most
natural communities after severe undersampling bias is removed.
Since the proportion of singletons has a robust statistical relationship with the degree of undersampling, it can be used to adjust
the results from non-parametrical estimators. Our transformation,
empirically derived from this relationship, was able to reduce the
bias from all the non-parametric estimators tested compared to
their untransformed versions at low sampling intensities, while
both versions converged to very similar values at high intensities.
The accuracy of an estimator is a compromise between the
variation among estimations (precision) and the distance between
the estimated richness and the real richness (bias) (Brose et al.,
2003; Walther and Moore, 2005). For example, at lower intensities
(intensity 5), the corrected Chao1P showed a reasonable trade-off,
losing on average 3% precision, but gaining 17% in bias reduction compared to Chao1. A mean of 17% less bias was found in
both the rarefaction simulations, drawn from high intensity samples, and from non-rarified lower intensity samples (Fig. 5). This
agreement between rarefied sub-samples from large tree plots and
other multi-taxa data suggests that the simulations were able to
reproduce realistic patterns in low intensity samples of natural
situations.
Notice that the improvement provided by Chao1P applies not
only to the average values but also to the 95% boundary, which
can be used to produce less conservative richness estimates. For
example, for the BCI dataset rarefied at an intensity of 5 ind/spp.,
Chao1P improved both the average estimate (24% less bias) and
the upper 95% estimate (26% less bias) compared to untransformed
Chao1.
The rarefactions, using data from six large plots of trees, also
allows us to predict the minimum intensity necessary for Chao1 and
Chao1P to make estimates close to 100% of original species richness.
According to these simulations, it would be necessary to sample, on
average, 51% more individuals to be able to make an accurate estimation using Chao1 (minimum intensity 78.7 ind/spp.) compared
to Chao1P (minimum intensity 52.0 ind/spp.). A difference of this
magnitude can represent a great economy of time and resources
while estimating the total richness of very diverse communities.
If one uses 95% of the total richness estimated as a more tenable
goal (Chao et al., 2009), the difference in sampling effort between
Chao1P and Chao1 becomes even larger, since our simulations
predict that one would need to sample, on average, 142% more
individuals using Chao1 (minimum intensity 50.0) than for Chao1P
(minimum intensity 20.7) to estimate 95% of a total sample richness. Since we found an increase of only 2% on Chao1P precision loss
compared to Chao1 at intensity 25 (close to the threshold of 20.7
for Chao1P for 95% estimation), the trade-off between loss of precision and gain in economy of sampling effort in order to estimate
95% of total richness appears to be extremely positive.
The other non-parametric estimators tested (Chao2, Jack1,
Jack2, ACE, ICE and Bootstrap) presented the same pattern found
with Chao1 (Fig. 6). The P corrected versions of each estimator
tested produced less biased estimates at low sampling intensities
High intensity uncorrected bias
4%
1%
9%
3%
3%
7%
5% (±1%)
High intensity corrected bias
3%
0%
7%
3%
2%
5%
3% (±1%)
compared to their original formulas while the corrected values converge with the original ones as the intensity of sampling increases.
The corrected version of ICE (ICEP), for example, was able to estimate 95% of BCI plot richness using sub-samples with 50 ind/spp.
of intensity while the uncorrected version of ICE only achieved the
same feat at intensity 100 ind/spp. (Fig. 6), this difference represents an economy of 50% in terms of sampling effort.
Consequently, our findings strongly indicate that our correction
for non-parametric estimators (Eq. (3)) produce less biased results
and should be used to estimate the richness in ecological studies
that are trying to remove the effects of undersampling. An alternative option is to parametrically extrapolate the number of species
to a given area or number of individuals (Melo et al., 2007; Reichert
et al., 2010). However, if such information (the total community
area, or the final number of individuals expected to be sampled)
is not available, a non-parametric estimation using the correction
present in Eq. (3) is the best option.
We also demonstrated that the intensity of sampling (the number of individuals sampled divided by the number of species) and
the proportion of singletons (the number of species represented by
one individual divided by the total number of species) can be used
to indirectly access the accuracy of richness estimates. Since these
two parameters can be easily determined at each stage of a real
sampling program they can provide useful guidelines for planning
and evaluating biodiversity surveys. In our multi-taxa database, for
example, 74% of the inventories are below the average intensity
threshold necessary to estimate at least 95% of the total richness
using Chao1, and 50% did not reach the same kind of threshold for
Chao1P. These numbers give support to Coddington et al.’s (2009)
arguments that we need greater investment in biodiversity inventories in order to get a realistic picture of the true richness of highly
diverse ecosystems.
5. Conclusions
• Our results indicate that ecological surveys that present more
than 8% of singletons, or less than 100 individuals/species of
sampling intensity, probably are suffering from some degree of
undersampling and could be improved either by an increase of
sampling effort or by using richness estimators.
• Our simulations and database analysis led us to recommend the
threshold of 20 individuals/species, or less than 21% of singletons, as a minimum sampling effort to produce reliable richness
estimates (at least 95% of richness estimated) using corrected
non-parametric estimators.
• The threshold rise for 50 individuals/species, or less than 14% of
singletons, if non-corrected estimators are used, which implies in
an economy of 60% of sampling effort due to the correction factor.
Acknowledgments
We thank Nicholas Gotelli, Adriano S. Melo, Carlos Eduardo
Grelle and two anonymous referees for insightful comments on the
Author's personal copy
L.C.S. Lopez et al. / Ecological Indicators 14 (2012) 164–169
subject. This work is supported by research fellowship from CNPq
to DOM and a post doc fellowship from CNPq/FAPESQ to MPAF.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.012.
References
Brose, U., Martinez, N.D., Williams, R.J., 2003. Estimating species richness: sensitivity to sample coverage and insensitivity to spatial patterns. Ecology 84 (9),
2364–2377.
Burnham, K.P., Overton, W.S., 1978. Estimation of the size of a closed population
when capture probabilities vary among animals. Biometrika 65, 623–633.
Chao, A., 1984. Nonparametric-estimation of the number of classes in a population.
Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 11 (4), 265–270.
Chao, A., 1987. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with
unequal catchability. Biometrics 437, 83–791.
Chao, A., Colwell, R.K., Lin, C.W., Gotelli, N.J., 2009. Sufficient sampling for asymptotic
minimum species richness estimators. Ecology 90 (4), 1125–1133.
Chao, A., Lee, S.M., 1992. Estimating the number of classes via sample coverage.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 7210–7217.
Chiarucci, A., Enright, N.J., Perry, G.L.W., Miller, B.P., Lamont, B.B., 2003. Performance of nonparametric species richness estimators in a high diversity plant
community. Diversity and Distributions 9 (4), 283–295.
Clarke, K., Lewis, M., Ostendorf, B., 2011. Additive partitioning of rarefaction curves:
removing the influence of sampling on species-diversity in vegetation surveys.
Ecological Indicators 11 (1), 132–139.
Coddington, J.A., Agnarsson, I., Miller, J.A., Kuntner, M., Hormiga, G., 2009. Undersampling bias: the null hypothesis for singleton species in tropical arthropod
surveys. Journal of Animal Ecology 78 (3), 573–584.
Colwell, R.K., 2009. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared
species from samples. Version 8.2. User’s Guide and application published at:
http://purl.oclc.org/estimates.
Colwell, R.K., Coddington, J.A., 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through
extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series
B – Biological Sciences 345, 101–118.
Condit, R.G., Ashton, M.S., Balslev, H., Brokaw, N.V.L., Bunyavejchewin, S., Chuyong,
G.B., Co, L., Dattaraja, H.S., Davies, S.J., Esufali, S., Ewango, C.E.N., Foster, R.B.,
Gunatilleke, N., Gunatilleke, S., Hernandez, C., Hubbell, S.P., John, R., Kenfack, D.,
Kiratiprayoon, S., Hall, P., Hart, T.H., Itoh, A., LaFrankie, J.V., Liengola, I., Lagunzad,
D., Lao, S., Losos, E.C., Magard, E., Makana, J.R., Manokaran, N., Navarrete, H.,
Mohammed Nur, S., Okhubo, T., Perez, R., Samper, C., Hua Seng, L.H., Sukumar,
169
R., Svenning, J.C., Tan, S., Thomas, D.W., Thompson, J.D., Vallejo, M.I., Villa Muñoz,
G., Valencia, R., Yamakura, T., Zimmerman, J.K., 2005. Tropical tree ␣-diversity:
results from a worldwide network of large plots. Biologiske Skrifter 55, 565–582.
CTFS, 2009. Center for Tropical Forest Science. [WWW document].
http://www.ctfs.si.edu/. Accessed: May 25, 2010.
Feest, A., 2006. Establishing baseline indices for the quality of the biodiversity of
restored habitats using a standardized sampling process. Restoration Ecology
14 (1), 112–122.
Feest, A., Aldred, T.D., Jedamzik, K., 2010. Biodiversity quality: a paradigm for biodiversity. Ecological Indicators 10 (6), 1077–1082.
Feest, A., van Swaay, C., Aldred, T.D., Jedamzik, K., 2011. The biodiversity quality of butterfly sites: a metadata assessment. Ecological Indicators 11 (2),
669–675.
Gotelli, N.J., Colwell, R.K., 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls
in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4 (4),
379–391.
Heltshe, J.F., Forrester, N.E., 1983. Estimating species richness using the Jackknife
procedure. Biometrics 3, 11–91.
Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H.,
Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setala, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J., Wardle, D.A., 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a
consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75 (1), 3–35.
Longino, J.T., Coddington, J., Colwell, R.K., 2002. The ant fauna of a tropical rain forest:
Estimating species richness three different ways. Ecology 83 (3), 689–702.
Magurran, A.E., 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford,
UK.
Mao, C.X., Colwell, R.K., 2005. Estimation of species richness: mixture models, the
role of rare species, and inferential challenges. Ecology 86 (5), 1143–1153.
Melo, A.S., Bini, L.M., Thomaz, S.M., 2007. Assessment of methods to estimate aquatic
macrophyte species richness in extrapolated sample sizes. Aquatic Botany 86 (4),
377–384.
Palmer, M.W., 1990. The estimation of species richness by extrapolation. Ecology
71, 1195–1198.
Palmer, M.W., 1991. Estimating species richness: the second order jackknife reconsidered. Ecology 72, 1512–1513.
Petchey, O.L., Gaston, K.J., 2002. Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition. Ecology Letters 5 (3), 402–411.
Reichert, K., Ugland, K.I., Bartsch, I., Hortal, J., Bremner, J., Kraberg, A., 2010. Species
richness estimation: estimator performance and the influence of rare species.
Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 8, 294–303.
Smith, E.P., van Belle, G., 1984. Non-parametric estimation of species richness. Biometrics 40, 119–129.
Walther, B.A., Moore, J.L., 2005. The concepts of bias, precision and accuracy, and
their use in testing the performance of species richness estimators, with a literature review of estimator performance. Ecography 28 (6), 815–829.
Zelmer, D.A., Esch, G.W., 1999. Robust estimation of parasite component community
richness. Journal of Parasitology 85, 592–594.